*Wright, don't you fault that idea? Don't lines with branches screw with the headways?

I fault it under two conditions; 1) When the corridor under question doesn't justify the need for the extra trunk service.Exceptions to that rule are; * Running a trunk subway with one or two branches feeding Wilshire Corridor from Westwood to Downtown* Downtown Regional Connector, * The 405 corridor between Van Nuys and Westwood* A small section serving LAX-El Segundo

These would work because the trunk serves the key corridor, destination, job center and or has a very high residential density (i'm talking Hong Kong/Paris/Tokyo like density) in question, however that is not true for a corridor let's say down Florence Avenue with branches all over the place.

2) There will be capacity limits to having too many branches along one corridor and with only two tracks. It's more to do with the operation side of things because the more switches and branches along the line the slower it will operate even if it's fully grade separated. And it just adds more confusion when you wait for the service.

What the map doesn't show is at the LAX section would have more than two tracks at the station (I'm assuming the section that you're refering to, or it could be the Crenshaw Map, that is a diagram of the various northern route options that it could take, not 4 or 5 lines sharing trunk on Crenshaw.) In addition El Segundo is one of the major job centers in the South Bay area so it makes sense to have a few lines with an already built grade separated corridor that serves a large job center.

Quote:

**Wright, which one would you say makes more sense?

That is a trick question. I'm very serious about that because it is dependant upon what style of service is discussed.

If it's local they're both equal however I would place a little more weight towards Long Beach because of the Wilmington connection (however how they connect into Long Beach will still be a major question). However San Pedro isn't a bad destination, of course having both terminals would be preferable.

If it's regional they are almost on equal footing because they will both link LAX and the South Bay, where at San Pedro is the World Cruise Center a place where a number of travelers from LAX will go to set off on their cruises around the Pacific. Long Beach could work as a Regional Terminal given it's current anchor as a regional job center to the South Bay.

__________________

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

I fault it under two conditions; 1) When the corridor under question doesn't justify the need for the extra trunk service.Exceptions to that rule are; * Running a trunk subway with one or two branches feeding Wilshire Corridor from Westwood to Downtown* Downtown Regional Connector, * The 405 corridor between Van Nuys and Westwood* A small section serving LAX-El Segundo

These would work because the trunk serves the key corridor, destination, job center and or has a very high residential density (i'm talking Hong Kong/Paris/Tokyo like density) in question, however that is not true for a corridor let's say down Florence Avenue with branches all over the place.

So, basically, you're saying that branches are okay when they feed into major residential and commercial corridors? Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

2) There will be capacity limits to having too many branches along one corridor and with only two tracks. It's more to do with the operation side of things because the more switches and branches along the line the slower it will operate even if it's fully grade separated. And it just adds more confusion when you wait for the service.

What the map doesn't show is at the LAX section would have more than two tracks at the station (I'm assuming the section that you're refering to, or it could be the Crenshaw Map, that is a diagram of the various northern route options that it could take, not 4 or 5 lines sharing trunk on Crenshaw.) In addition El Segundo is one of the major job centers in the South Bay area so it makes sense to have a few lines with an already built grade separated corridor that serves a large job center.

I know that the Crenshaw map you posted only shows various routing options. I'm talking about the Green Line having Lincoln and South Bay branches and wonder if that would mess with the headways.

So, basically, you're saying that branches are okay when they feed into major residential and commercial corridors? Is that what you're saying?

In so many words yes. With more emphasis on the serving the commercial corridors than the residential. Once the main commercial corridors are served by the rail then the residential corridors can follow. But there is still a limit you don't want to have too many branches coming in from every where to serve the line. One, two, maybe three branches ok, any more we'll be talking about four track corridors.

Quote:

I know that the Crenshaw map you posted only shows various routing options. I'm talking about the Green Line having Lincoln and South Bay branches and wonder if that would mess with the headways.

No, I don't think it would mess with it because the headways would be split if an extension of the Green Line were to run to LAX all the Lincoln corridor would do is extend that. By the time Crenshaw Corridor comes online, there maybe a plan to just have the Crenshaw Corridor trains follow the El Segundo/South Bay leg (per the ridership analysis in the Crenshaw Corridor study) and the Green Line would simply run as a LAX/105 freeway/Lincoln Corridor route.

__________________

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

in his swearing in speech for his second term, Villaragoisa mentioned that one of his goals is to accelerate the time line for the first 12 projects in measure R. i hope he finds a way to make this true. The problem with a lot of grand plans here in LA are the extremely long time lines that make them unrealistic.

In so many words yes. With more emphasis on the commercial corridors than residential. Once the main commercial corridors are served by the rail then the residential corridors can follow. But there is still a limit you don't want to have too many branches coming in from every where to serve the line. One,two, maybe three branches ok, any more we'll be talking about
four track corridors.

I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying, but I think I have an idea. Let's use the Red/Purple Lines as an example, which serve a major commercial and residential corridor by the name of Wilshire Blvd. Is the segment between Union Station and Wilshire/Vermont the so-called trunk? If so, then I understand how branches can increase headways. But, what I'm talking about is the wait at Wilshire/Vermont for trains to Wilshire/Western and North Hollywood and how the trains come every ten minutes.

Quote:

No, I don't think it would mess with it because the headways would be split if an extension of the Green Line were to run to LAX all the Lincoln corridor would do is extend that. ...

I don't get what you're saying. Would you care to clarify?

Quote:

... By the time Crenshaw Corridor comes online, there maybe a plan to just have the Crenshaw Corridor trains follow the El Segundo/South Bay leg (per the ridership analysis in the Crenshaw Corridor study) and the Green Line would simply run as a LAX/105 freeway/Lincoln Corridor route.

Yes, that's what I would love to see. It seems rather inefficient and inconvenient to have to make that transfer onto the Green Line to continue farther south.

in his swearing in speech for his second term, Villaragoisa mentioned that one of his goals is to accelerate the time line for the first 12 projects in measure R. i hope he finds a way to make this true. The problem with a lot of grand plans here in LA are the extremely long time lines that make them unrealistic.

I don't think we can expect any sort of timeline acceleration without significant changes in Sacramento and DC. LA is doing its part, but the other two are not. That's the sad part.

I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying, but I think I have an idea. Let's use the Red/Purple Lines as an example, which serve a major commercial and residential corridor by the name of Wilshire Blvd.

Quote:

Is the segment between Union Station and Wilshire/Vermont the so-called trunk?

That is correct.

Quote:

If so, then I understand how branches can increase headways. But, what I'm talking about is the wait at Wilshire/Vermont for trains to Wilshire/Western and North Hollywood and how the trains come every ten minutes.

Huh, what are you asking in the underlined statement?

Quote:

I don't get what you're saying. Would you care to clarify?

If the Green Line to the Airport was built while it still had the El Segundo/South Bay leg there would be two branches; (LAX and El Segundo) sharing a trunk section (105 Freeway). If the Green line were to be extended to Lincoln Corridor all it would be is an extension of the LAX branch. This is similiar in concept with extending the Purple Line to Westwood, that is essentially the extension of the Wilshire/Western Branch of our main trunk subway. Hopefully that could clarify it.

Quote:

Yes, that's what I would love to see. It seems rather inefficient and inconvenient to have to make that transfer onto the Green Line to continue farther south.

Exactly considering that the biggest transfer will happen at the Airport/Century Blvd station.

__________________

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

On that map, the Pink Line that you have needs to connect to the other three lines to the south of it, no? it would be a great way to tie the southern portion of the system together.

I'd suggest that it's even more important to extend that Pink line north. In general, the Westside is the biggest cluster**** in the entire metro area. It's getting to the point where Metro needs to take a serious look at gridding-up the DTLA/WestLA core with lines on:

in his swearing in speech for his second term, Villaragoisa mentioned that one of his goals is to accelerate the time line for the first 12 projects in measure R. i hope he finds a way to make this true. The problem with a lot of grand plans here in LA are the extremely long time lines that make them unrealistic.

Well, he might as well do something to salvage his fading political career. At least end things on a good note.

I'd suggest that it's even more important to extend that Pink line north. In general, the Westside is the biggest cluster**** in the entire metro area. It's getting to the point where Metro needs to take a serious look at gridding-up the DTLA/WestLA core with lines on:

I agree. Instead of focusing so much on a county-wide system, we should channel our efforts into bringing rail lines to places where the people would actually use them. This is why I think we could use a municipal transit agency to develop rail lines in LA's core area. I'd like to reference my Santa Monica and Beverly Line proposals, which are based on the premise of needing a denser network in the core urban area:

Not necessary. It's only two blocks east of Flower Street, where the Blue Line runs.

Quote:

Broadway

See Broadway streetcar project.

Quote:

La Cienega

See Westside Extension.

Quote:

La Brea

This could be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor.

Quote:

Fairfax

This could also be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor.

Quote:

Vermont

Already a subway down Vermont north of Wilshire. An extension farther south is planned.

Quote:

Western

Necessary, IMO, but Wright would argue that it's too close to Vermont.

Quote:

Venice

I agree. Instead of this being a branch of Crenshaw, extend it east along Pico to DTLA where it would then run along Broadway or Main to serve South Park, Fashion District, Historic Core, Toy District, and Civic Center.

By Wright Concept

Quote:

Wilshire

Um, yeah.

Quote:

3rd

Too close to Wilshire. Maybe a BRT?

Quote:

SaMo

See Westside Extension. Also, the Silver Line proposal could be extended down Santa Monica and connect with the Westside Extension.

Quote:

Melrose

Too close to Santa Monica.

Quote:

Sunset

Only the Sunset Strip. I'm having a hard time seeing how it could work. Maybe a line up San Vicente and then up Sunset?

Trains on the Wilshire/Western and North Hollywood branches themselves, NOT the actual trunk, have 10-minute headways. Therefore, don't branches only benefit the trunk?

Simple answer, Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

I agree. Instead of focusing so much on a county-wide system, we should channel our efforts into bringing rail lines to places where the people would actually use them. This is why I think we could use a municipal transit agency to develop rail lines in LA's core area. I'd like to reference my Santa Monica and Beverly Line proposals, which are based on the premise of needing a denser network in the core urban area:

I think back to what certain County Supervisor (Antonovich) says about funding the Wilshire Subway or any other subway in Los Angeles. "If it's (their) the city's will let them do it"

The more I think about it the more it makes sense.

If the City of LA were to float a bond let's say $ 2.5 Billion dollars (folks they tried to push originally $2 billion in bonds this past election, but only prop H got to the ballot) and they were to only build within the city limits of LA, lets say the Wilshire Corridor until Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center. Maybe one down the Vermont Corridor from Wilshire until King Blvd or Slauson to serve the transit dependant and the BRU zealots would have no leg to stand on, since it would allow the current 58,000+ bus riders better service. Or even on the Whittier Corridor from Lorena to Downtown. Extentions that are just enough to make a dent and gain a lot of riders, but not deep enough that it requires them to purchase more trains cause now they'll be directly dealing with MTA. This also serves a dual function to help with LA re-zoning efforts to make transit oriented development and strengthening neighborhood fabrics...

Quote:

See Westside Extension...

This could be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor...

This could also be a northern extension of the Crenshaw Corridor...

Already a subway down Vermont north of Wilshire. An extension farther south is planned...

Necessary, IMO, but Wright would argue that it's too close to Vermont.

And you'd be right. Western is not only too close to Vermont, it's too close to possible North extension of Crenshaw Corridor at this moment. However with many of these busy lines I do see the immediate need of instituting a network of bus only lanes. On the really busy bus lines string up some trolley wire and run trolleybuses along those routes on those special bus only lanes. With Western much like Pico-Venice east of Mid City I'd go for these corridors when the two parallel corridors adjacent to them go over capacity;
* Western would make a wonderful subway corridor once Crenshaw and or Vermont goes over capacity.
* Pico-Venice once Expo and or Wilshire corridor goes over capacity.

Quote:

I agree. Instead of this being a branch of Crenshaw, extend it east along Pico to DTLA where it would then run along Broadway or Main to serve South Park, Fashion District, Historic Core, Toy District, and Civic Center.By Wright Concept

That sketch was more of a quick iteration to one I did previously in High School (c.1998) as an idea of what is the absolute bare minimum of infrastructure network needed to serve mostly the heart of the Westside without too much subway construction.

I was thinking of the Muni Metro and this was during the Zev's law fury where we had the Expo Right of way and thought originally why not have these branches (Santa Monica, Westwood, Venice and LAX/South LA) feed a main trunk along the existing right-of-way.

Original hypothesis with updated info. Grey areas are not built due to funding that would've been taken away to build the Expo four track corridor.

Problems with that is Expo right-of-way would need to be 4 tracks to make this work and then the costs would balloon out of control because that would require an additional tunnel and alignment in Downtown or a rebuilding of the existing Blue Line tunnel for Four tracks. The cost of that would have meant a very short Wilshire subway extension miss out on key destinations of Century City and Beverly Hills and the Mid-City and Larchmont areas would be left out completely.

However I said all of that to say going East on Pico-Venice isn't entirely ruled out.

The trick with extending the Pico-Venice line east is where to place the stations, the current bus ridership on Pico is heavily utilized for short travel distances, so maybe a shorter stop spacing between stations will be needed? That was the busiest and heavily utilized boarding per passenger mile streetcar corridor when it was the old LA Yellow Cars, I wouldn't be surprised if reinstitued it would be a successful streetcar line again, to start.

Quote:

Too close to Wilshire. Maybe a BRT?

Third Street from Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center to Downtown would make an excellent trolleybus corridor or streetcar line.

__________________

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

And you'd be right. Western is not only too close to Vermont, it's too close to possible North extension of Crenshaw Corridor at this moment. However with many of these busy lines I do see the immediate need of instituting a network of bus only lanes. On the really busy bus lines string up some trolley wire and run trolleybuses along those routes on those special bus only lanes. ...

Any rail line down Western would have to be a subway because the street is too narrow. So, it is definitely not financially feasible now and won't be anytime soon. I think bus-only lanes would work fine, but I'm not sure how effective they'd be.

Quote:

... With Western much like Pico-Venice east of Mid City I'd go for these corridors when the two parallel corridors adjacent to them go over capacity;
* Western would make a wonderful subway corridor once Crenshaw and or Vermont goes over capacity. ...

Wow, you're talking about maybe 30 years from now!

Quote:

... * Pico-Venice once Expo and or Wilshire corridor goes over capacity.

In the meantime, how about the Venice branch? I think it should feed into a La Brea, rather than Crenshaw, trunk because Venice would probably be served by the Green Line by then.

Quote:

... The trick with extending the Pico-Venice line east is where to place the stations, the current bus ridership on Pico is heavily utilized for short travel distances, so maybe a shorter stop spacing between stations will be needed? ...

Yes, yes, and more yes! I was worried that if such a line were to happen, then the standard 1-mile stop spacing would be used, to which I would've argued that the area was built on a more pedestrian scale and that 1/2-mile stop spacing would be more appropriate.

Also, doesn't this bring in the possibility of a San Vicente branch to feed into the Pico trunk?

Quote:

... That was the busiest and heavily utilized boarding per passenger mile streetcar corridor when it was the old LA Yellow Cars, I wouldn't be surprised if reinstitued it would be a successful streetcar line again, to start.

Wouldn't it have to be a subway until Crenshaw, where it would then run either at-grade or elevated?

Quote:

Third Street from Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center to Downtown would make an excellent trolleybus corridor or streetcar line.

I think such ideas would make great short-term solutions. At least do something.

All this talk shows just how little the federal government is doing in the name of funding. If the pool of funds were greater, proposals like these would be taken more seriously.

Okay. My question to you now is if we can increase service on the branches to 5-minute headways and on the trunk to 2-3 minute headways?

Simple answer: Build the Purple Line to at least Century City!

By that point both lines willl need 6 car trains and operate on the same short headway. Right now if we were to do that, the Wilshire branch trains would look very empty while the North Hollywood trains would be fine.

Another variable in this transit equation is understanding the role the Regional Connector (RC) will play in all of this because if we build RC and nothing else capacity will be freed up on the Downtown trunk portion of the line because another alternative have been introduced.

That is why it's so important to think of the building of our transit network as being a shark. When a shark keeps getting stalled, it stops moving. When it stops moving it dies, so would our transit network if we don't plan ahead and keep building and funding the network.

So its silly to get caught up in the details or dilemmas of at-grade, elevated, subways, light rail, heavy rail, BRT, because in a developing network that stalls the shark, it stalls the building of our much needed network.

Quote:

So, what's stopping us? Why aren't we doing this?

What else the political will to do it. CRA helps connect some of the City Councilmembers with potential campaign donors through projects. So doing what i'm proposing would essentially cut some of the Councilmembers from their power source.

Quote:

Regarding the last sentence, how can we afford 4-track corridors?

We'd have to use a larger TBM (40-45' in diameter) to go very deep under that street and have the four track corridor be in essence 2 two-track corridors stacked on top of each other. I was making that statement as more of a coulda, shoulda, woulda. With stop spacing every mile apart underground and dedicated bus only lanes or LRT with signal preemption on the ground that is the best way to create the Local-Express transit network that is needed for our corridors.

Quote:

Any rail line down Western would have to be a subway because the street is too narrow. So, it is definitely not financially feasible now and won't be anytime soon. I think bus-only lanes would work fine, but I'm not sure how effective they'd be.

The biggest improvement to Western with Bus Only Lanes isn't capacity but operational efficency. They can get by with better schedule reliability moving the same number of passengers on fewer buses. The trolley buses would be a means of moving large numbers of people for a lot less fuel consumption.

Quote:

Wow, you're talking about maybe 30 years from now!

At least.

Quote:

In the meantime, how about the Venice branch? I think it should feed into a La Brea, rather than Crenshaw, trunk because Venice would probably be served by the Green Line by then.

My intention for the North La Brea Subway sketch is to have both Crenshaw and Venice branches run together between Hollywood and Mid-City to connect with the Red and Purple Lines. Think of the Regional Connector in concept. Venice branch wouldn't have ran through to the Crenshaw branch.

Quote:

Yes, yes, and more yes! I was worried that if such a line were to happen, then the standard 1-mile stop spacing would be used, to which I would've argued that the area was built on a more pedestrian scale and that 1/2-mile stop spacing would be more appropriate.

Also, doesn't this bring in the possibility of a San Vicente branch to feed into the Pico trunk?

Wouldn't it have to be a subway until Crenshaw, where it would then run either at-grade or elevated?

These are entirely possible, in this hypothetical stage.

Quote:

All this talk shows just how little the federal government is doing in the name of funding. If the pool of funds were greater, proposals like these would be taken more seriously.

BINGO!!!

__________________

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Orange Line already connects with the Red Line. I'm talking about using the, 134 and 210 to connect with the Gold Line in Pasadena...

Extend it to the Whitnall ROW. Go down the ROW as Below grade (avoiding the demolition of overhead Powerlines, Parks, and most importantly, homes) to Alameda and Olive with an Underground Station (lots of infill potential there), and then use the 134/210 all the way to Pasadena at the Gold Line Holly Station

We'd have to use a larger TBM (40-45' in diameter) to go very deep under that street and have the four track corridor be in essence 2 two-track corridors stacked on top of each other. I was making that statement as more of a coulda, shoulda, woulda. With stop spacing every mile apart underground and dedicated bus only lanes or LRT with signal preemption on the ground that is the best way to create the Local-Express transit network that is needed for our corridors.

So, local-express subway corridors are out of the question? Would they be significantly more expensive?

Quote:

My intention for the North La Brea Subway sketch is to have both Crenshaw and Venice branches run together between Hollywood and Mid-City to connect with the Red and Purple Lines. Think of the Regional Connector in concept. Venice branch wouldn't have ran through to the Crenshaw branch.

So, you agree with me about the Venice branch feeding into a La Brea trunk?

So, local-express subway corridors are out of the question? Would they be significantly more expensive?

For our region, yes they would be. Because the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and because the stop spacing is farther apart then other Metro's (at apporx every 0.8 to 1.0 mile apart compared to every 0.4 to 0.5 mile apart)

Quote:

So, you agree with me about the Venice branch feeding into a La Brea trunk?

Yes.

__________________

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

Google launched a public beta version of Google Transit for the Los Angeles metro area this weekend, after a long, hard wait. The partnership will be officially announced soon, following an initial testing period. In March, an anonymous source told LAist that Metro had a beta version ready to go and only needed to sign off on a public launch, which it was hesitant to do. In June, Metro released transit data sets for developers, setting off speculation that Google Transit for LA Metro would go live within the month. Et voila! There are still some kinks to be worked out, as reported by Militant Angeleno, who broke the story this morning, but here we are, catching up with Flagstaff and Fresno.